Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the four regime combinations and states exactly what is returned: a market summary plus per-coin price change, OI change, and current OI over the window. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but for a read-style analytics tool this is sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficient and front-loaded: it states the core concept first, then explains the regime logic, then lists the return contents. Every sentence adds value, and the four regime explanations are compact despite their density.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the single optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the input window, the calculation logic, and the full return shape. An agent has enough information to call the tool and interpret its results without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The only parameter, minutes, is indirectly described as 'over the window,' which implies minutes is the lookback window. This adds some meaning beyond the raw schema but does not explicitly define units, allowed range, or how the default interacts with the window.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (get), a specific resource (positioning regime), and the exact construction (price direction crossed with open interest). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing a unique analytical output that no sibling name suggests.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies when this tool is appropriate: whenever a positioning regime based on price and open interest direction is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the behavior and output are specific enough that an agent can select it appropriately.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.